D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[pemerton]

I don't know about the others, but you absolutely take turns in Dungeon World. Just not in any particular order.

From p 17 of the DW rulebook:

As we play, the rules will chime in, too. They have something to say about the world. There are no turns or rounds in Dungeon World, no rules to say whose turn it is to talk.​

Of course there is "turn taking" in the sense of giving everyone at the table an appropriate chance to speak. But there is no taking of turn in the D&D sense (as the quote from the rulebook indicates), no action economy, no resolution of action by application of movement rates to a map or grid, etc.

 

[pemerton]

One thing that Dungeon World, Prince Valiant and (sometimes, depending which subsystem is being used) Burning Wheel have in common is the use of a single check to determine the clash of arms (and related matters). In DW, for instance, whether damage is suffered by a PC or not will depend on whether the GM chooses to deal damage as a move, which will typically be consequent on a player's throw to defy danger or to hack & slash. In Prince Valiant, resolution is typically via opposed checks.

Part of what causes the issue that @FrogReaver has diagnosed is that the clash of arms is resolved via a series of semi-independent mechanical processes, anchored around the actions of the various participants in the fight. In terms of game design, this is a legacy of wargaming/boardgaming - where having those semi-independent mechanical processes is a key part of the play experience, and is where players get to show off their mechanical mastery of the game.

The games where this issue is avoided tend to be those that have moved further away from the wargaming paradigm. One consequence of this is that they may be less satisfying to RPGers who enjoy the wargame/boardgame aspect of play.

 

[clearstream]

We have two characters in the initiative order, P (controlled by a player) and N (controlled by the GM). They are separated by 25', a distance which either an cover with a single movement. N is at the top of the initiative order. Here are two possible sequences of events that follow.

(1) The GM decides that N holds their position, and shoots P. The attack hits. P's hit point total is adjusted. The player decides that P takes some sort of healing action in response to being shot.

(2) The GM decides that N holds their position, and shoots P. The attack hits. P's hit point total is adjusted. The player decides that P closes to melee with N.

According to the rules of the game, both (1) and (2) occur over a 6-second period. The rules of the game (including the rules for movement, opportunity attacks and similar) also establish that it is possible, in some circumstances, for P to close the distance to N and get too close to N for N to shoot effectively. (This would be the case in a scenario that resembled (2) but the initiative order was reversed.) That knowledge informs our understanding of the actual scenarios.

So in (2), something must have happened that made it possible for N to get a shot off before P got all up in N's face. You have suggested one possibility: P stumbles. N's choice In the fiction) to shoot rather than, say, fall back, is informed by observing that P stumbles. But at the table, we cannot establish the fiction that P stumbles until after N's turn is fully resolved, and we now come to P's turn, and we have to posit some fiction that will explain why P couldn't get to N before N got a chance at a clean shot.

That is reinforced by (1), where there is no narration that P stumbled, because P doesn't move at all. In (1) P's action clearly follows, in the fiction, on N's - N shoots, P treats the resulting wound - which does make one wonder what is N doing while P treats their wound? Perhaps at the top of the next initiative order we will come up with another bit of narration that explains that - maybe N is taking a long time to nock another arrow? - but we won't be able to narrate that either until after the GM declares N's action. Yet in the fiction whatever that is is supposed to be a (partial) cause of whatever action it is that N takes!

I hope that I have made the point reasonably clear.

Thank you, that really helps! A view is taken of the flow of local macroscopic interactions and information that gamers experience in the real world - that we generally call "time" - and the game model is expected to comply with that flow. To expect that compliance is a simulationist-concern, even though it's not arising from simulationist-motives.

To make the information constraints clear, picture two actors on an unbounded grid. They can each move 6 squares (30') in their turn. The time-simulationist expects that they move some of that over each second of the 6-second round. It could be as simple as expecting them to move 1 square a second. Supposing both start at rest, and actor 1 wants to catch actor 2. One can quibble with this example, but let's imagine that the actors must commit to their full movement in second 1, which might be something like what is thought to be happening when a cleric commits to a spell cast. There are well over 100 squares that actor 2 could possibly be found in by second 6 from the point of view of actor 2, who must decide at the start of second 1 what direction to move to intercept them. The problem is, how does actor 2 in second-1 have information about actor 1's position in second-6?

Are the times times at the table or are they imagined times in the fiction?

No such distinction is envisioned: I take a non-simulationist view of time in D&D combat. I suppose that all actors are continuously doing things, and the moments we see in a round are just highlights and points of interjection, in a scene too complex for a game to model. I do not assume any going back up the time stack to find out what N is doing while P2 treats P1's wound. It transpires that P1 is wounded, and P2 treats that; N might well do more, as we will discover in future rounds. That's sufficient for a coherent narrative. The example of Magritte's pipe is intended to illustrate that it pays not to look to closely at any picture: if you do you'll find canvas, emulsion and pigment, not a pipe!

All simulations are necessarily incomplete, and I finesse that limitation by saying that game need not be simulation. As noted up-thread, I gloss-over or elide. Information flows in game mechanisms and fictions really shouldn't be examined too closely. Hardly anyone has much grasp on information flows in the real world (consider quantum field theory, or Lorentz transformations!) That said, I want to acknowledge that all games lean very hard upon appeals to real world experiences. If something about a game disrupts that for us, then we find ourselves woken up from our suspension of disbelief... and it can be difficult for us to rejoin play.

Is that in turn clear?

 

[clearstream]

According to the rules of the game, both (1) and (2) occur over a 6-second period. The rules of the game (including the rules for movement, opportunity attacks and similar) also establish that it is possible, in some circumstances, for P to close the distance to N and get too close to N for N to shoot effectively. (This would be the case in a scenario that resembled (2) but the initiative order was reversed.) That knowledge informs our understanding of the actual scenarios.

Moving from background approach to mechanical specifics. The rules say that a round is 6-seconds, but I don't believe they say that actions in a round must take 6-seconds. Do you agree?

That is reinforced by (1), where there is no narration that P stumbled, because P doesn't move at all. In (1) P's action clearly follows, in the fiction, on N's - N shoots, P treats the resulting wound - which does make one wonder what is N doing while P treats their wound? Perhaps at the top of the next initiative order we will come up with another bit of narration that explains that - maybe N is taking a long time to nock another arrow? - but we won't be able to narrate that either until after the GM declares N's action. Yet in the fiction whatever that is is supposed to be a (partial) cause of whatever action it is that N takes!

Informationally, when do you suppose is long-enough after P1 takes damage, for P2 to be aware of that damage and treat their wound? 1-second? 6-seconds? More?

 

[FrogReaver]

Thank you, that really helps! A view is taken of the flow of local macroscopic interactions and information that gamers experience in the real world - that we generally call "time" - and the game model is expected to comply with that flow. To expect that compliance is a simulationist-concern, even though it's not arising from simulationist-motives.

You keep calling this simulationist. So let's start here, what does simulation mean to you?

To make the information constraints clear, picture two actors on an unbounded grid. They can each move 6 squares (30') in their turn. The time-simulationist expects that they move some of that over each second of the 6-second round. It could be as simple as expecting them to move 1 square a second. Supposing both start at rest, and actor 1 wants to catch actor 2. One can quibble with this example, but let's imagine that the actors must commit to their full movement in second 1, which might be something like what is thought to be happening when a cleric commits to a spell cast. There are well over 100 squares that actor 2 could possibly be found in by second 6 from the point of view of actor 2, who must decide at the start of second 1 what direction to move to intercept them. The problem is, how does actor 2 in second-1 have information about actor 1's position in second-6?

I've no idea what you are trying to illustrate here. That action declaration that require precise grid coordinates for movement breaks down if declared before hand? If so, thank goodness no one is advocating for that. The people suggesting declared action solutions have a much less precise movement declaration than what you are imagining here.

No such distinction is envisioned: I take a non-simulationist view of time in D&D combat.

The only thing I can imagine you mean by 'non-simulationist view of time' is that you mean causality isn't preserved. And yet you still maintain 6 second rounds. You don't let characters attack after dropping to 0 hp. It seems to me that most of your combat does require a 'simulationist view of time'. Perhaps that term isn't nearly as explanatory as you hoped?

I suppose that all actors are continuously doing things, and the moments we see in a round are just highlights and points of interjection, in a scene too complex for a game to model.

That seems pretty normal. I don't know anyone that approaches D&D combat differently.

I do not assume any going back up the time stack to find out what N is doing while P2 treats P1's wound. It transpires that P1 is wounded, and P2 treats that; N might well do more, as we will discover in future rounds. That's sufficient for a coherent narrative.

But you do, perhaps unknown to you. If you didn't you wouldn't be able to create that coherent narrative. I mean go back to the whole orcs and fighter in initiative and the fighter wanting to move through a door 5 ft away. To create a coherent narrative you had to stipulate that something caused the fighter to be unable to move before the orcs got to him.

All simulations are necessarily incomplete, and I finesse that limitation by saying that game need not be simulation. As noted up-thread, I gloss-over or elide. Information flows in game mechanisms and fictions really shouldn't be examined too closely. Hardly anyone has much grasp on information flows in the real world (consider quantum field theory, or Lorentz transformations!) That said, I want to acknowledge that all games lean very hard upon appeals to real world experiences. If something about a game disrupts that for us, then we find ourselves woken up from our suspension of disbelief... and it can be difficult for us to rejoin play.

Is that in turn clear?

The game is incapable of simulating 2 fighters charging each other and meeting in the middle. That is a 'problem' but not the problem I keep coming back to.

The problem I keep coming back to is that of player decision making based on the fiction. If you want to call basing decisions on the fiction 'simulationist' then go ahead. That's not what I would call it though.

 

[FrogReaver]

One thing that Dungeon World, Prince Valiant and (sometimes, depending which subsystem is being used) Burning Wheel have in common is the use of a single check to determine the clash of arms (and related matters). In DW, for instance, whether damage is suffered by a PC or not will depend on whether the GM chooses to deal damage as a move, which will typically be consequent on a player's throw to defy danger or to hack & slash. In Prince Valiant, resolution is typically via opposed checks.

Part of what causes the issue that @FrogReaver has diagnosed is that the clash of arms is resolved via a series of semi-independent mechanical processes, anchored around the actions of the various participants in the fight. In terms of game design, this is a legacy of wargaming/boardgaming - where having those semi-independent mechanical processes is a key part of the play experience, and is where players get to show off their mechanical mastery of the game.

The games where this issue is avoided tend to be those that have moved further away from the wargaming paradigm. One consequence of this is that they may be less satisfying to RPGers who enjoy the wargame/boardgame aspect of play.

I should add that my preferred solutions would maintain the combat war game while minimizing these kinds of effects.

 

[clearstream]

You keep calling this simulationist. So let's start here, what does simulation mean to you?

A model of something. Ontologically, it requires at least the model, and the thing modelled. Implicitly, one might include users of the model.

The only thing I can imagine you mean by 'non-simulationist view of time' is that you mean causality isn't preserved. And yet you still maintain 6 second rounds. You don't let characters attack after dropping to 0 hp. It seems to me that most of your combat does require a 'simulationist view of time'. Perhaps that term isn't nearly as explanatory as you hoped?

Causality isn't at issue. I recommend McTaggart for a classic discussion of the unreality of time sequences.

That seems pretty normal. I don't know anyone that approaches D&D combat differently.

And yet, here we are

The game is incapable of simulating 2 fighters charging each other and meeting in the middle. That is a 'problem' but not the problem I keep coming back to.

Where is the middle? Is it the mid-point between them on a given round? Or is it the point they meet?

The problem I keep coming back to is that of player decision making based on the fiction. If you want to call basing decisions on the fiction 'simulationist' then go ahead. That's not what I would call it though.

I'm not using the term pejoratively. So far as I can see, it in no way diminishes your position to say that the game as model fails to simulate the temporal causality you expect, based on a naturalist view of the real world you inhabit. That's at least as reasonable as expecting a longsword to weigh 3lbs and to be usable one- or two-handed, and far more consequential!

 

[FrogReaver]

A model of something. Ontologically, it requires at least the model, and the thing modelled. Implicitly, one might include users of the model.

More later. But doesn’t this imply that everything rpg related is simulationist? Every mechanic. Every fiction.

If so, isn’t that description a bit overly broad for a discussion like this?

 

[Umbran]

‘The characters all stood immobilized in fear/awe at the approaching orc horde.’

"They all subconsciously prepared for a battle-charge from the orcs - weight lowered and slightly forward, set to receive the orcs' incoming mass, shields half-raised, hands half-positioned to cast spells... and were rather nonplussed when the orcs went right past them."

 

[FrogReaver]

So I think I've worked out my preferred solution to this.

I'll call the system Lead and Follow.

There will be some mechanic to determine the Lead team at the start of the combat. Every other round the Lead team will alternate.

The Lead team will declare all their actions first. The Follow team will hear those actions and be able to declare actions in response. Actions by both will be declared in more generic terms such as 'move to the cleric and attack'. After everyones action is declared, Initiative will be rolled, but unlike traditional initiative the combatants don't take their turns in order. The initiative numbers instead will be used by the DM along with the declared actions to help establish precise PC and NPC positioning at the moment a creatures initiative comes up. The attack for that initiative goes off. The DM moves combat to the next initiative, establishing new PC and NPC positions as before. This initiative action/spell/whatever occurs.

I think this system solves all the issues raised in this thread and doesn't seem particularly more complex or time consuming than regular play.

An example:
P1
P2

N1
N2

P team Leads.
P1 declares he will move to and attack N1
P2 declares he will move to and attack N2

N team follows
N1 declares he will move to and attack P1
N2 declares he will move to and attack P1

Initiative is rolled
P1 = 20
N2 = 10
N1 = 5
P2 = 1

All 4 characters start charging each other. P1 starts the fastest and has a bit faster pace. He meets N1 after moving about 20ft. They begin attacking each other and P1 finds the first opportunity to really connect. He rolls his attack but misses - the opening closed too fast.

While P1 and N1 are fighting N2 makes it to P1 and finds an opening. He rolls his attack and hits.

Moments later N1 finds his opening. He rolls his attack and hits P1.

A split second later P2 makes it into the fray. He finds an opening against N2 due to N2's focus on P1. He rolls his attack and hits N2.

In this scenario all actions are being based on the fiction. Positioning is being based on the fiction + mechanics. Etc. Does anyone see any flaws with this methodology solving the issues I've been describing?